get_subject_characters

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds no further behavioral traits beyond the obvious 'get list' functionality. Missing details like potential ordering, pagination, or result structure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very short (one phrase) and front-loaded. It is appropriately concise for a simple read-only list tool with one parameter, though it could benefit from a brief note on output.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (one param, read-only, output schema present), the description is adequate. However, it doesn't clarify the relationship to siblings or potential edge cases, which could confuse agents with many similar tools.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% (subject_id described as '条目ID'), so baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. No param examples or clarification of ID format.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description '获取条目角色信息列表' clearly indicates the action (get) and resource (character info list for a subject). It distinguishes from siblings like get_character_info (individual character) and get_subject_persons (persons), but does not explicitly contrast them.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as get_character_info for a single character or get_subject_persons for person roles. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.